Ormond Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 42 minutes ago, Inigima said: That's true but it's not even news. Same story as always: conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. But of course another thing that's going on is that the Trump phenomenon points out the different definitions of "conservative." The "National Review" conservatives are going to argue that Trump wasn't really "conservative" and that's why he lost. But the part of the base that votes for Trump actually defines the word "conservative" precisely according to the "nativist" policies Trump espouses. If Trump loses, they are going to blame the economic conservatives and accuse THEM of not being "conservative" enough because they were "soft" on immigration and crime. I think there really is a basic disagreement on the definition of the word "conservative" in the different wings of the Republican party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Ormond said: But of course another thing that's going on is that the Trump phenomenon points out the different definitions of "conservative." The "National Review" conservatives are going to argue that Trump wasn't really "conservative" and that's why he lost. But the part of the base that votes for Trump actually defines the word "conservative" precisely according to the "nativist" policies Trump espouses. If Trump loses, they are going to blame the economic conservatives and accuse THEM of not being "conservative" enough because they were "soft" on immigration and crime. I think there really is a basic disagreement on the definition of the word "conservative" in the different wings of the Republican party. The question they will have answer of course is how Trump managed to trounce the "true conservatives". The answers will be interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I am very interested to learn what lessons, if any, the Democrats will learn as a party from this election. Sometimes it seems like they get it, other times they seem stunningly out of touch. If the Republicans' disarray makes the Democrats complacent it is going to cost them. I'm pretty concerned that even if we don't have a Trump presidency this time, we will have one or something like it very soon, unless the Dems understand the very real frustrations people have, particularly with neoliberal trade policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Khizr Khan, a day after DNC address, urges Ryan and McConnell to repudiate Trump http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/khizr-khan-paul-ryan-mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-2264 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, Inigima said: I am very interested to learn what lessons, if any, the Democrats will learn as a party from this election. Sometimes it seems like they get it, other times they seem stunningly out of touch. If the Republicans' disarray makes the Democrats complacent it is going to cost them. I'm pretty concerned that even if we don't have a Trump presidency this time, we will have one or something like it very soon, unless the Dems understand the very real frustrations people have, particularly with neoliberal trade policies. I don't see any scenario where either candidate doesn't have a massive uphill battle for reelection. There is strong division in both parties and each party has a different well to draw from next go around. Clinton would face someone in the mold of Rubio. Trump would face someone like Warren. It would give the unhappy factions this year something to hold on to and they would match up well with their opponents. The Republican side is just more vocal now because Trump supporters feel like they were sold a bill of goods when the Tea Party was adopted and they were duped into guys like Romney and Ryan who couldn't get the job done, so that flame has been fanned for quite awhile. Meanwhile a lot of Democrats in 2008 sort of feel like Obama promised a more progressive platform and became a centrist who needlessly compromised too much with a Republican Party who had no interest in playing ball, but they sort of toed the line. Then Sanders became the standard bearer for those sentiments when they felt like they didn't owe Clinton the same loyalty they owed Obama. Personally I feel like it would be a lot healthier if we stopped having two big tent parties and had a Tea Party, a Republican Party, a Democratic Party, and a Progresive Party. They would all win in different party of the country and Presidential elections would have 4 real choices that line up with the people as opposed to the Green Party and Libretarian Party which are sort of masturbatory spoilers that aren't enough in line with mainstream politics. It would force more compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Quote I am very interested to learn what lessons, if any, the Democrats will learn as a party from this election. Sometimes it seems like they get it, other times they seem stunningly out of touch. If the Republicans' disarray makes the Democrats complacent it is going to cost them. I'm pretty concerned that even if we don't have a Trump presidency this time, we will have one or something like it very soon, unless the Dems understand the very real frustrations people have, particularly with neoliberal trade policies. Well, there will be a Republican President at some point. History tells us so. Unless the Republicans really set out with intent to shit the bed repeatedly for decades. This is vaguely possible, because they are doing it right as we speak. But it's fairly likely they'll get their act together by 2020. It's just not clear what form that will take. We probably won't be able to hold the White House for 4 terms in a row. Obviously, it hasn't happened in a very long time for either party. If even 4 happen, it will be because they manage to push some progressive policy through that effects real lives. Republicans are extremely effective at blocking all policy in Congress and then blaming the Democrats for it. However, it's extremely important for the Democrats to win in 2016. A generation of Supreme Court control is likely at stake. And Trump is the worst possible candidate in modern times. It's a bit like if you knew how a bad George Bush was going to be before he was elected. And then you knew he would be like ten times as bad as that. He'll either do some really bad stuff, or he'll be ineffective and scandal prone. It's pretty rare that you see how bad a candidate will be ahead of time. I didn't vote for Bush, but he really fooled me. I thought he'd be a typical Republican President. But yeah, Democrats losing in 2020 wouldn't be a surpise at all. It's the typical back and forth of US politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 32 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Khizr Khan, a day after DNC address, urges Ryan and McConnell to repudiate Trump http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/khizr-khan-paul-ryan-mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-2264 Trump's response to questions about Khan. Quote “Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America,” Khan said, addressing Trump. “You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” Trump appeared to try to brush the speech aside, saying that Khan “was, you know, very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me.” Trump also said, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.” Pressed by Stephanopoulos to name the sacrifices he’d made for his country, Trump said: “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've had tremendous success. I think I've done a lot.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Pressed by Stephanopoulos to name the sacrifices he’d made for his country, Trump said: “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've had tremendous success. I think I've done a lot.” /Tremendous success = Sacrifice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Quote Trump also said, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.” What a coward that man is. He hasn't even got the guts to spout his racist crap openly. He's got to hum and haw around words like 'maybe' and 'probably' and 'you tell me' in a pathetic attempt to cover himself. If he wants to hear from Mrs Khan, he can watch her speak on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Martell Spy said: Well, there will be a Republican President at some point. History tells us so. Unless the Republicans really set out with intent to shit the bed repeatedly for decades. This is vaguely possible, because they are doing it right as we speak. But it's fairly likely they'll get their act together by 2020. It's just not clear what form that will take. We probably won't be able to hold the White House for 4 terms in a row. Obviously, it hasn't happened in a very long time for either party. If even 4 happen, it will be because they manage to push some progressive policy through that effects real lives. Republicans are extremely effective at blocking all policy in Congress and then blaming the Democrats for it. However, it's extremely important for the Democrats to win in 2016. A generation of Supreme Court control is likely at stake. And Trump is the worst possible candidate in modern times. It's a bit like if you knew how a bad George Bush was going to be before he was elected. And then you knew he would be like ten times as bad as that. He'll either do some really bad stuff, or he'll be ineffective and scandal prone. It's pretty rare that you see how bad a candidate will be ahead of time. I didn't vote for Bush, but he really fooled me. I thought he'd be a typical Republican President. But yeah, Democrats losing in 2020 wouldn't be a surpise at all. It's the typical back and forth of US politics. A Republican president and a Trump-type president aren't necessarily the same thing. I saw someone say that they think a slicker candidate will repackage Trump's basic themes into a more palatable candidate and potentially clean up, and I think that's a real concern if the Dems don't start appealing more to that audience in terms of policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Trump and RNC attacking presidential debate schedule. Quote Donald Trump says the fall debate schedule is "unacceptable," raising the specter that he may try to skip them. In a tweet on Friday night, Trump incorrectly said that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "trying to rig the debates." In fact, the fall debate schedule was determined almost a year ago by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, a private group made up of both Republicans and Democrats. RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer invoked criticism of the commission on CNN Saturday morning, saying "The entire system needs to be relooked at." Trump's primary complaint in his tweet was that two of the debates are scheduled on the same nights as NFL games. That's true — but it was also true in 2012, and the debates were still high-rated. Sporting events, religious holidays, and other factors cause scheduling headaches every four years. The first debate of 2016, slated for September 26, coincides with "Monday Night Football" on ESPN. The vice presidential debate is scheduled one week later on October 4, a Tuesday. The second presidential debate, on October 9, coincides with "Sunday Night Football" on NBC. The final debate is slated for October 19, a Wednesday. NFL games are played on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays in the fall. Fridays and Saturdays are effectively ruled out because TV viewing is lower on weekend evenings. That only leaves Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Rumors are he's not engaged in the normal negotiations and there is potential that he refuses to do the debates all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I will be shocked if there are trump Clinton debates, no way trump will agree to do them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Inigima said: I am very interested to learn what lessons, if any, the Democrats will learn as a party from this election. Sometimes it seems like they get it, other times they seem stunningly out of touch. If the Republicans' disarray makes the Democrats complacent it is going to cost them. I'm pretty concerned that even if we don't have a Trump presidency this time, we will have one or something like it very soon, unless the Dems understand the very real frustrations people have, particularly with neoliberal trade policies. There are certainly going to be a host of difficult challenges to meet, dealing with free trade issues, the displacement of workers because of technology, health care issues, pension issues and so forth. All of them are going to be difficult technocratic challenges, where mistakes can be made, which the Republican party can and will exploit. Not that I think when it comes to technocratic competence do I think the parties are close, as the Republican party has generally lost its mind, particularly over the last few years, when it basically went spazoid, in large part, I think, because it feared a second coming of FDR, given that the economy blew up under a Republican president. Still the Democratic Party is going to need to bring its A game. That and learn to fight for its policies a bit harder. There is an opportunity here to damage conservatism, as we know it, very badly. Though I'm not confident the Democratic Party will be able to pull it off. As Will Rogers once quipped "I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Really depends on where the polls are at the time. Conventional wisdom says these debates decide the election considering how close they are right now. A dominant performance for either of them likely turns the tide outside of a national crisis (like the 2008 recession). If they are close I think they will come to some kind of compromise. To be blunt I think both campaigns have an attitude where they think they can put the other one away if they get them on stage. Trump's bread and butter was at the RNC debates and Hillary has to feel like she can school him on policy and wrap this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, mormont said: What a coward that man is. He hasn't even got the guts to spout his racist crap openly. He's got to hum and haw around words like 'maybe' and 'probably' and 'you tell me' in a pathetic attempt to cover himself. If he wants to hear from Mrs Khan, he can watch her speak on TV. I think a lot Progressive rhetoric I see about Trump undersells what a disaster he would be. He wouldn't just overturn ACA and make the Supreme Court more conservative( though those would be valid reasons to vote against a generic Republican.) like that Vox article said, a Generic Republican would not have said that. Trump is not Mitt Romney, he is not John McCain (though Sarah Palin was a proto-Trump) and he is not even George W. Bush. He is far more dangerous than any of them were. And when I say dangerous, I don't mean he's going to pull an Erdogan or Putin (though he may want to), but that putting a thin-skinned narcissist with the impulse control of a twelve year old and the inability to ever back down from or de-escalate any confrontation control over the countries foreign policy and nuclear weapons. That's in addition to his conception of America as a country for white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 56 minutes ago, lokisnow said: I will be shocked if there are trump Clinton debates, no way trump will agree to do them. Hillary and the DNC can goad him into it rather easily, methinks. Just call him out as being chickenshit for a couple of weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Why Trump Supporters Think He'll Win How the election looks to backers of the Republican nominee http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/backing-donald-trump/493619/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Quote Hillary and the DNC can goad him into it rather easily, methinks. Just call him out as being chickenshit for a couple of weeks. Yeah, he's incredibly easy to troll. Warren really has his number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Hillary and the DNC can goad him into it rather easily, methinks. Just call him out as being chickenshit for a couple of weeks. He will just say something about the liberal media making them unfair, and how he would destroy her in a real debate if it was fair but he is skipping them because he doesn't need them. Then he'd crawl back on twitter and call her names some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, SkynJay said: He will just say something about the liberal media making them unfair, and how he would destroy her in a real debate if it was fair but he is skipping them because he doesn't need them. Then he'd crawl back on twitter and call her names some more. And then they could keep goading him showing him to be the hypersensitive coward that he has always been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.